Fiji has had an established democratic tradition since independence in 1970, suffered four military coups between 1987 and 2006. The model of civil-military relations prior to, and following localization at independence, had bound the Fiji military in a close patronage relationship with Fiji’s ruling chiefly class. This research investigates the construction of gender norms in the militarization of Fiji through the military coups and consequent phases of militarization. Recognizing that gender inequality reinforces the exclusion and marginalization of women, the study underlines the perspective of women and their capacity to express agency in response to differential impacts of militarization. A feminist intersectionality approach is utilised to examine the intersection of women’s diverse experiences of militarization and how their positioning along multiple sites of social identities shape their responses to militarization. The research highlights three key findings: the construction and manifestation of violent, culturally-sanctioned, masculinised, militarised norms and their intersection with other social identities particularly race and status during the coups; the prevalence of patronage relations among Fiji’s ruling classes; and the capacity of women’s agency in response to militarization.

First, the military coups demonstrate culturally-sanctioned indigenous Fijian gender norms, that associate power with hegemonic forms of masculinity, aided by the military’s monopoly over its legitimate access to arms and the use of force. Examining the paradox between two key post-independent roles of the Fiji military, its participation in global peacekeeping and the perpetration of local military coups, the study argues that Fiji’s investment in ‘masculinity’ through peacekeeping as a foreign policy, has created a ‘crisis’ in masculinity due to the discrepancy between a soldier trained for combat being involved in peacekeeping. Returning peacekeepers have resorted to violence in the home to be able to cope with this ‘crisis,’ thus forcing women to bear the burden of violence, which parallels the burden that Fiji citizens have borne through the military coups at national level. Second, the prevalence of a patronage relationship between the chiefly ruling class and the military has benefited only a select group to the detriment of the nation. While the coups were originally justified to restore power to the chiefly class, they instead became symptoms of the declining power and eventual demise of the chiefly institution, and its replacement by a military elite emboldened by the success of their coups through the chiefs’ initial patronage. Third, women’s exclusion from the excesses of the patron-client relations enabled them to develop and strengthen their capacity for political and social agency in response to the oppressive conditions of militarization, instead of seeing themselves as victims of circumstances beyond their control.